The trouble with ingredients in sunscreens | Hacker News Reader

The trouble with ingredients in sunscreens

ewg.org

84 pointsadomasm378 comments

Sad to see this article reach the end of the scrollbar without even a mention of the triazine sunscreens which are pervasive in Japan and approved in the EU with no action from the FDA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bemotrizinol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iscotrizinol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylhexyl_triazone

etc

Concern over the FDA slow-walking approval of triazine sunscreens was raised in the trade press no later than 2005:

https://pubsapp.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8315sunscreens.htm...?

To date there has been no movement.

Fortunately while we wait for the FDA to get its act together we can buy triazine sunscreen relatively cheaply and have it shipped here. I've been using Altruist: https://altruistsun.com/

The first one I checked on that website, “Face Fluid”, has Octocrylene which is a hormone disrupter according to the article.

I'm pretty sure Isntree Hyaluronic Acid Watery Sun Gel is a triazine sunscreen as well. Korean brand, amazing product.

> per·va·sive

(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people.

What is unwelcome about triazine sunscreens?

I’ve started to minimize my use of sunscreen. It still important to stay protected from the sun, but long sleeves, hoods, hats, and pants are a great alternative. The lightweight sun shirts are comfortable and more convenient.

For my kids, I got them cheap wetsuits from Amazon for the time we spend camping at the lake. This is also cheaper than sunscreen. They can fully manage it on their own since about age 6 or 7.

this is a good solution but doesn't protect the face. zinc oxide (physical sunscreen) is a good choice for the face that doesn't have the problems in the article.

Of course, zinc oxide looks terrible - white hue - but there are some that are not as bad as others. I use Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Kids (roll-on, so adults and kids can use it easily). After a little rubbing, it's still noticeable but just barely. The "regular" neutrogena sunblock - lotion style - has one or more of the chemicals that break down into benzene. Some of them were in the FDA recall. The EWG article doesn't mention these break down into benzene. It shoulld. ConsumerLabs did a thorough review and analysis.

The summer 2023 Consumer Reports (not ConsumerLabs) article on sunscreen had absolutely no mention of the sunscreen recalls (2021, 2022, 2023) and in fact recommended some products that had been recalled and are known to break down into benzene and benzophenone. Any residual respect I had for them is now gone.

A silver-coated umbrella is very effective at protecting the face as well as some of the upper body (or the whole body, if the sun is directly overhead or the umbrella is huge), except for UV reflected from elsewhere which I think is usually not significant.

I found a good reef friendly zinc oxide (All Good Zinc Butter Sunscreen) that doesn't give the white sheen when you rub it in really well. A lil' dab'll do ya, as they say.

Don't sunscreen need to be pretty thick to be as good as it says on the label?

I read somewhere that most of the people need SPF50+, because they apply it “badly”, AKA not enough, and definitely not often enough.

Tinted zinc oxide face sunscreen is fantastic, and it covers face blemishes. It's like makeup lite.

Zinc/titanium oxide for the body is a more problematic, I've haven't found a brand that blends well.

Titanium dioxide protects primarily against UVB and much less so for UVA. Zinc oxide protects against both.

Don't hats protect face reasonably well?

(not talking baseball hats here:)

EltaMD has a "almost entirely invisible" zinc oxide sunblock as well.

which one? they have 15 face sunscreens, and 8 body sunscreens, all with zinc oxide. can you please recommend? I want to try it. Thank you.

UV Clear - https://eltamd.com/collections/face-sunscreen/products/uv-cl...

This is the one I enjoyed! But the new packaging shows "Active Ingredients: 9% Zinc Oxide, 7.5% Octinoxate" ... my older packaging didn't show Octinoxate, which is likely an endocrine disruptor. So I'm rather annoyed and can't recommend it anymore.

I actually started using a mask for my face. My nose has never been more happier.

How does one get their required sun for vitamin D if taking sunscreen so seriously?

I still wear a hat, or cover up entirely if I will be out all day, but the fern based pills like helicare or solaricare or whatever seem to prevent me from burning, or even reverse a mild burn if I take it fast enough. I have no idea if it is preventing dna damage that would lead to cancer. But I get a little tan by the end of the summer. And I've never done that before. My dermatologist recommended it so it must be fine...

Judging by the amount of people that are Vitamin D deficient according to the medical community, makes me really wonder if the medical community would think twice about giving you tips that make you continue being vitamin D deficient. It doesn't seem to be important to them.

I've never heard of these fern-based supplements before. How are they supposed to be better than other antioxidants?

AFAICT there is no scientific evidence of people actually getting vitamin-D deficiency from sunscreen use.

Even with really powerful sunscreen, every second you're exposed some portion of those UV-B wavelengths are still getting through to catalyze the production of Vitamin D.

According to one study [0] on a sunny summer day in Spain you could have 25% of your skin exposed and only need 7 minutes for that day's vitamin-D needs. (Obviously longer in dimmer conditions and wintertime, but those aren't the times people are going to slather sunscreen everywhere either.)

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29156273/

Note: vitamin D production is reduced with age (given same amount of sunlight exposure)

Alcohol also interferes with vitamin D synthesis.

In the summer, you only need a few minutes of exposure. Basically, you get that even if you use sunscreen all the time, because you make mistakes.

So why are so many people vitamin D deficient?

Because there are other seasons, climate types, latitudes, skin colours, and there are a ton of people who rarely, if at all go outside, especially those who have panic, stress, or anxiety disorders.

Also, of course, there is a variability between people how much vitamin D they can produce, but we have no real clue about the causal connections there, but so far it seems that it’s way less important than other factors generally speaking, especially in the context of “many people”.

Well I said many people because I'm not an encyclopedia... I just knew it was a lot which refutes your point.

So I looked it up, like you should have. In the US it's 40%. You're telling me 40% of people don't go outside for a few minutes??

If 40% of people have a vitamin D deficiency, I think you should change your recommendation for everyone other than people that get a lot of sun.

Vitamin D supplements + Vitamin K2

To add to this, you should also be getting regular (like twice a year) blood draws done to check where all your nutrient levels are. This way, you can decide which supplements and how much.

Through this, I've learned that my Vit. D supplement works. My multivitamins work, and my B12 supplements work. My previous iron supplement was not working, and I was able to make a change to a different product. Then, six months later, a blood test showed my iron levels back in the normal range.

why K2? you getting lots of K vitamins from the sun?

it helps with the absorption of vit D

Honestly, I love comments like this to remind me that HN posters have massive blind spots in knowledge that most people would assume are almost common knowledge for an adult. But beyond that, in the face of seeing 90% of the answer presented in front of you by the prior commenter, where you could basically infer that there must be some be some benefit to taking both, instead of googling it prior to a comment, you reply back with a snide comment assuming the prior poster is a total fool.

> cheap wetsuits

See "rash guards". They're light-weight UV-opaque T-shirts that are intended to get wet, essentially. I wear one, and I do not burn under it, even at the beach, in the sun, all day. Do not forget to apply sunscreen to your hands, since it doesn't cover them — I made that mistake exactly once. (And other exposed areas, of course.)

Here's a European manufacturer: https://iq-uv.com/en/

Excellent quality, and their clothing really works. (I wore their Water Sports shirts extensively while swimming and diving in south Italy, where the sun is fierce.)

Never heard of them before, sounds like they might be useful.

I've never heard them called wet suits or rash guards. Here we call them "sun shirts" or "UV shirts". They are most definitely not wet suits like scuba diver gear.

Oh, rash guards are most definitely not wet suits, I wasn't intending to imply that. Just for what the parent was using them for (protecting kids while doing what sounds like playing in the lake) they sound like they'd be a better fit than a wet suit.

"UV shirt" would be a far more sensible name than "rash guard", I admit. That was just the name I learned for them when I first found out they existed. (Which was in Hawaii, under a brutally unforgiving sun.)

Rash guards are halfway between a wetsuit and a sun shirt. I have one for surfing, but I got the kids wetsuits because Flathead Lake can be cold as well as sunny. They have more fun and play longer in the water with them.

Down under we call the rash vests, or "rashies". They're typically a thin neoprene like material, often as thin as a t-shirt, but some can be a bit thicker for warmth too.

I mean that's a great anecdote, but it distracts from the article.

The takeaway here that people should be leaving with is that mineral based sunscreen is a safe, effective, and healthy alternative.

This "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comment that does not address the linked article at all should not be at the top.

I went pretty much the whole summer, including most of August in the south of France, using very small amounts of sunscreen, mostly on face and neck and mostly zinc oxide based.

I spent June and July building up a tan gradually in my back garden (northern England) at lunchtime, 30 minutes at most, whenever the sun was shining.

By the time I went on holiday in August I could easily go without burning when exposed for an hour or two, but making sure I was covered up in the afternoon.

I’m not sure if this is a healthy approach or not, but I feel like I’m hedging my bets against both skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency by using a bit of tan, bit of sunscreen, bit of covering up.

The idea of a "base tan" that is protective against sunburns and skin cancer has found to be a myth [1], unfortunately. It has no protective effect, and may be counterproductive, since it gives you more confidence to go out in the sun without sunscreen protection.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-a...

Sun exposure may have a range of other beneficial effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086738/

In the end, I think it's flatly obvious that too much or too little (as anyone who lives in northern latitudes can tell you) sun exposure is bad for you. There's an ideal range somewhere.

Sure. I was only addressing the suggestion that a "base tan" is protective.

The data in the article you linked doesn't agree with you - it says a base tan gives an SPF of 2, and gives the example that that means if you would normally burn in 10 minutes, it will now take 2x the time (20 minutes) to burn. Doubling the burn time is hardly "no protective effect".

While it is “something” regarding cancer risk, it’s way closer to nothing than to regard this as any kind of useful protection.

Bear in mind this was after only two weeks of exposure, on people with pale skin with simulated sun exposure trying to mimic a very northern latitude (London). They also only used UVA and UVB rays, omitting the infra-red spectrum.

The sensible advice is generally to spend a few months gradually increasing your unprotected sun exposure, then towards the end of the summer may be able to hang out unprotected in the morning/midday sun for an hour or two without burning. Of course everyone's mileage is going to vary here, as is their tolerance for risk vs reward of sun exposure.

Tan already means DNA damage, AKA increased cancer risk. Just because you won’t necessarily be burned, it doesn’t mean, it’s not bad for you. So it’s definitely not that simple.

Right, it's a trade-off. The benefits of vitamin D, infrared spectrum light on the immune system, and blue light on hormone signaling likely outweigh some increased skin cancer risk if you are smart about your exposure patterns.

There is some evidence than sun exposure decreases your risk for many other cancers moreso than it increases your risk of skin cancer, although exposure patterns and other factors are going to be very important here. And obviously there's a lot more than just cancer that a healthy body and immune system is protecting you from.

You need to be on the sun minimal time to maximise these benefits. It happens earlier than getting for example a tan.

citation needed

First of all, funny that this is the first comment for which you need citation. Second, a simple Google search can help you.

Please do not try this in Australia.

maybe Tasmania

What about Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (P20) ?

Is that available in the US?

We briefly had nanozinc, which works for hours, stays on in the water, and is good for skin. But it was cancelled in a bout of consumer hysteria based on nothing. Fifteen years later we're still stuck with chemical sunscreens that are irritating, work for 30-60 minutes at a time, wash off in the water in 2 seconds, and may actually be bad for health.

>Upon inhalation of ZnO nanoparticles, serious local effects in the lung were observed. Even if this may be due to the solubilized Zn ions, the effects are a direct result of the exposure to the ZnO nanoparticles. Therefore, the SCCS is of the opinion that, on the basis of available information, the use of ZnO nanoparticles in spray products cannot be considered safe.

There are many zinc oxide sunscreens today that market themselves as "non-nanoparticle" for this very reason. Pro tip: don't ever use spray-on sunscreen, especially around children who can't hold their breath.

It's sometimes useful for areas with a bit of hair, but not enough hair to protect the skin from the sun. However, if you do use spray sunscreen, also make sure to do it outside or other very well ventilated area.

Many sprays and powders are harmful to lungs, including zinc oxide particles of any size. SCCS concluded nanozinc in non-spray sunscreens is safe

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_s...

I never use sunscreen... I just try to stay out of direct sun in the worst parts of the day if I can. Wear a hat etc. Sun can be pretty hot here in South Africa but that's a common approach I think.

Just basically whatever doctors and the FDA says is probably wrong. That's the conclusion one can draw about the endless stories like this.

The author provides claims with no evidence of impact on public health. Meanwhile, we have plenty of evidence with regards to sun exposure and skin cancer.

yes i'm going to believe an unsourced blog post over actual doctors...

How did we evolve to "need" sunscreen? It honestly doesn't make any sense at all.

Evolution doesn't optimize for eeking out extra years by lowering risk of skin cancer, and it doesn't optimize for minimizing wrinkles as you age. These are benefits sunscreen provides.

If you're white, your skin was evolved over generations of time spent in very low UV sunlight. The UV index in North Europe is 1 or 2 right now, depending on the city. In Ecuador, it's 12. A white person would begin to burn within a few minutes without protection there. Caucasian people have evolved with very little melanin because that means they can absorb more vitamin D in low, intermittent, or weak sunlight conditions

Asian and Black people basically do not get skin cancer. It wildly depends on your ethnicity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345197/#:~:tex...

Because they evolved and adapted in much higher sunlight conditions.

I think it’s the other way around, right? Our common ancestors evolved high-melanin skin, and people with less melanin in their skin evolved to lose the melanin as a response to moving to lower-light parts of the world.

Technically, you are right, I don't mean all ethnicities evolved independently.

So that goes back to my original comment then - apparently billions of people can get away with not using sunscreen due to evolution.

Well large regular amounts of solar radiation isn't great for anyone's skin over long periods of time, but yes they can still live relatively normal lives without sunscreen.

You just needed to make it to puberty, so like 12 to 14?,to reproduce. Anything after for evolution is bonus I would think.

And what would be the consequence of not wearing sunscreen be exactly?

The skin cancer rates are wildly different depending on what ethnicity you are. For Asians and Blacks it's 4% of the rate of Caucasians. In fact it's nearly non-existent.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345197/#:~:tex....

It's different being outside all day everyday from day 0 and being inside most of the time except for on the weekends.

Plus, you know, we take lots of notes about cancer now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com